MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794577228 · doi:10.1016/j.bja.2018.02.007

A systematic review and consensus definitions for standardised end-points in perioperative medicine: pulmonary complications

2018· review· en· W2794577228 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Abbott, Alexander J. Fowler, Paolo Pelosi, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Ann Merete Møller, Jaume Canet, Ben Creagh‐Brown, Monty Mythen, Tony Gin, Manoj M. Lalu, Emmanuel Futier, Michael P. W. Grocott, Marcus J. Schultz, Rupert M. Pearse, Paul S. Myles, T.J. Gan, Andrea Kurz, Phil Peyton, Daniel I. Sessler, Martin R. Tramèr, Allan M Cyna, Gildàsio S. De Oliveira, Christopher L. Wu, Mark P. Jensen, Henrik Kehlet, Mari Botti, Oliver Boney, Guy Haller, Tim Cook, Lee A. Fleisher, Mark D. Neuman, David Story, Russell L. Gruen, Sohail Bampoe, Lisbeth Evered, David A. Scott, Brendan Silbert, Diederik van Dijk, Cor J. Kalkman, Matthew T.V. Chan, Hilary P. Grocott, Roderic G. Eckenhoff, Lars S. Rasmussen, Lars Eriksson, Scott Beattie, Duminda N. Wijeysundera, Giovanni Landoni, Kate Leslie, Bruce Biccard, Simon Howell, Peter Nägele, Toby Richards, André Lamy, Marcelo Gabreu, Andrew C. Klein, Tomás Corcoran, D. James Cooper, Jan M. Dieleman, E Diouf, David R. McIlroy, Rinaldo Bellomo, Andrew Shaw, John R. Prowle, Keyvan Karkouti, J. Billings, C. David Mazer, Mohindas Jayarajah, Michael K. Murphy, Justyna Bartoszko, J. Robert Sneyd, Shaine A. Morris, Ronald B. George, Ramani Moonesinghe, Mark Shulman, Meghan B. Lane‐Fall, Ulrica Nilsson, Nathalie Stevenson, Wilton A. van Klei, Luca Cabrini, Timothy E. Miller, Nathan L. Pace, S. Jackson, Donal J. Buggy, Timothy G. Short, Bernhard Riedel, V. Gottumukkala, Bilal Alkhaffaf, Mark Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Anaesthesia · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Journal of Anaesthesia
KeywordsPerioperativeConsensus conferenceMedicinePerioperative medicineIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicineSurgeryPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.186
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.463
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1860.463
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.023
Bibliometrics0.0270.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0070.012
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations415
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of AnaesthesiaSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207